rV“f .y  ' '•':*  >•■  ;>  . . t. 

C^OJukiDD 


w 


|Pi!»5a®) 


4if 


[Notes  supplementary  to  the  Johns  Hopkins  University 
Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science.— No.  7.] 


CHARITIES. 

The  Relation  of  the  State,  the  City,  and  the  Individual 
to  Modern  Philanthropic  Work. 

By  A.  G.  WARNER,  Ph.  D. 

The  following  are  extracts  from  a series  of  six  lectures  on  Municipal  and 
State  Charities,  delivered  before  the  students  of  Social  Science  of  the  Johns 
Hopkins  University,  by  A.  G.  Warner,  Ph.  D.,  recently  General  Secretary 
of  the  Charity  Organization  Society  of  Baltimore,  and  now  Associate  Pro- 
fessor of  Economic  and  Political  Science  in  the  University  of  Nebraska. 
The  lectures  were  given  during  November  and  December,  1888,  and  in  con- 
nection with  them  Saturday  excursions  were  made  to  some  of  the  charitable 
institutions  of  the  city.  The  six  places  visited  were  as  follows : The  City 
Almshouse  at  Bay  View ; the  Department  for  the  Insane,  connected  with 
the  same  institution ; St.  Mary’s  Industrial  School  for  white  boys,  between 
the  ages  of  eight  and  twenty-one  years ; St.  Vincent’s  Infant  Asylum  for 
children  under  eight  years  cf  age ; the  Home  for  Incurables ; and  the  Little 
Sisters  of  the  Poor,  a home  for  the  aged' of  both  sexes.  Notes  regarding 
the  different  excursions  were  made  by  students  especially  designated  for 
the  purpose,  and  these,  together  with  accounts  of  future  visits  of  the  same 
character  may  hereafter  be  published. 

Charity  and  Science. 

The  political  economists  have  had  much  to  say  of  philanthrophy  as  a 
failure.  One  might  infer  from  their  writings,  though  it  is  nowhere  dis- 
tinctly asserted,  that  altruism  is  something  necessarily  perverse  and  mis- 
chievous. In  a paper  before  the  American  Social  Science  Association  on 
“Altruism  Economically  Considered,”  Mr.  Smiley  of  Washington  dwelt  at 
length  on  the  bad  objective  results  of  philanthropic  work.  His  task  was 
easy,  and  has  already  been  better  done,  perhaps,  by  those  who  have  arraigned 
‘existing  charitable  methods  at  the  bar  of  truer  charity.  Yet  the  long 
struggle  between  the  apostles  of  self-interest  and  and  the  apostles  of  self- 
sacrifice  has  benefited  both  parties. 

We  need  not  be  bothered  by  a consideration  of  the  philosophical  subtlety 
which  is  supposed  to  prove  that  all  human  acts  are  necessarily  inspired  by 
self-interest.  It  seems  likely  enough  that  in  the  last  analysis  this  is  true, 
but  in  any  practicable  analysis  it  is  not.  As  popularly  understood  self- 
interest  and  self-sacrifice  are  very  different  motives,  and  to  prove  that  they 
have  a common  origin  does  not  prove  that  they  are  identical.  There  have, 
in  fact,  been  very  practical  benefits  resulting  through  the  study  of  social 
questions  simultaneously  from  these  two  standpoints.  In  important  in- 
stances each  has  served  as  a starting  point  from  which  to  run  “ correction 
lines”  useful  in  testing  conclusions  reached  from  the  other. 

During  the  first  half  of  the  present  century  the  English  philanthropists 
and  the  English  economists  joined  issue  squarely  on  two  great  questions, 


▼ 


2 


Charities. 


and  the  victors  in  one  case  were  vanquished  in  the  other.  The  economists 
won  in  the  fight  for  the  reform  of  the  poor  laws,  the  philanthropists  won 
in  the  fight  for  factory  legislation.  Of  course  no  sharp  line  of  distinction 
can  he  drawn  between  the  two  classes  thus  labelled,  but  in  the  main  it  is 
true  that  the  apostles  of  self-interest  were  on  one  side  and  the  apostles  of 
self-sacrifice  on  the  other.  The  economists,  from  Smith  down,  had  con- 
demned the  old  system  of  poor  relief  in  England.  Chalmers,  in  his  dual 
capacity  as  political  economist  and  pastor  had  not  only  attacked  the  system 
but  had  shown  by  example,  as  well  as  precept,  how  to  do  away  with  it. 
Senior  was  one  of  the  most  active  members  of  the  Poor  Law  Commission 
during  and  following  the  revision  of  the  wretched  system.  The  good* 
results  of  revision  greatly  strengthened  the  Iciissez-faireists.  Carlyle,  in 
reviewing  the  first  four  reports  of  the  Commission,  thus  summarizes  their 
teachings : “ Ours  is  a world  requiring  only  to  be  well  let  alone.  Scramble 
along  thou  insane  scramble  of  a world,  . . . thou  art  all  right,  and  shalt 
scramble  even  so ; and  whoever  in  the  press  is  trodden  down,  has  only  to 
lie  there  and  be  trampled  broad : — such  at  bottom  seems  to  be  the  chief 
social  principle,  if  principle  it  have,  which  the  Poor  Law  Amendment  Act 
has  the  merit  of  courageously  asserting,  in  opposition  to  many  things.” 

In  the  second  struggle,  that  for  factory  legislation,  the  two  parties  were 
distinct,  and  distinctly  antagonistic.  Lord  Ashley  and  the  other  champions 
of  the  new  movement  were  sneered  at  as  “humanity-mongers.”  It  was 
alleged  that  “no  thinking  man  agreed  with  them.”  Cobden,  Bright, 
Brougham,  Gladstone,  Hume,  Boebuck,  and  Graham  were  against  them. 
It  was  an  issue  involving  the  welfare  of  some  300,000  operatives  and  of 
about  40,000  children.  It  was  won  in  the  name  of  humanity  and  not  of 
science.  It  would  doubtless  have  been  possible  to  have  defeated  the  doc- 
trinaires in  their  own  domain  of  theory,  but  Ashley  and  the  others  found  it 
better  to  talk  facts  rather  than  theories,  and  to  appeal  to  the  sympathies  of 
the  nation  rather  than  to  intellect. 

The  parallel  experiences  of  victory  and  defeat  have  apparently  made' 
both  the  parties  wiserX  The  “ New  Political  Economy”  is  said  to  be  less 
“ dismal  ” than  the  old.  On  the  other  hand  there  is  as  yet  no  such  word  as 
“ philanthropies,”  and  perhaps  no  science  of  self-sacrifice.  But  at  least  the 
“ New  Charity  ” tries  to  make  benevolence  more  constantly  beneficent.  To 
some  it  seems  that  to  speak  of  “ scientific  charity  ” is  a perversion  of  terms 
and  another  instance  of  the  confused  thinking  that  results  from  a tendency 
to  count  our  sciences  before  they  are  hatched.  Yet  the  phrase  is  in  common 
use  at  the  various  Conferences  of  Charities,  and  something  to  which  it  can 
be  properly  applied  is  very  palpably  coming  into  existence. 


Charity  and  the  Church. 


Historical.  The  Bible  commends  him  that  “ considereth  ” the  poor.  The 
church  of  the  Middle  Ages  was  content  to  insist  that  people  must  give  to 


/ 


/ 


/ 


83] 


Charities. 


3 


the  poor — preferably  through  the  church.  Christ  had  taught  that  riches 
are  dangerous  to  growth  in  spiritual  life ; the  mediaeval  church  taught  that 
poverty  is  a virtue.  Consideration  of  the  effect  of  giving  upon  the  poor 
themselves  was  precluded  by  the  wish  of  the  giver  to  benefit  himself.  The 
objective  results  were  ignored.  People  gave  less  from  love  of  neighbor  than 
as  a sort  of  spiritual  investment  from  which  they  expected  celestial  divi- 
dends ; they  were  less  anxious  to  help  those  to  whom  they  gave  than  they 
were  to  secure  a proper  balance  on  the  books  of  the  recording  angel.  11  The 
blind  eleemosynary  spirit  of  the  Romish  church/’  says  Hallam,  “ was  noto- 
riously the  cause  and  not  the  cure  of  vagabondage.”  The  same  writer 
holds  that  public  relief  in  England  began  before  the  monasteries  were  sup- 
pressed, and  that  the  church  would,  in  any  event,  have  been  unable  to  pro- 
vide for  the  destitution  that  her  indiscriminate  giving  helped  to  cause. 

At  'present . How  sad  is  our  heritage  from  these  early  errors  is  shown  by 
the  fact  that  many  churches  and  church  members  still  refuse  to  see  the 
difference  between  the  charity  that  gives  lavishly  and  dismisses  the  sub- 
ject, and  the  charity  that  “ suffereth  long  and  is  kind.”  Pastors  even  yet 
encourage  their  people  to  organize  dole-giving  societies,  because  they  do 
not  know  what  else  to  have  them  undertake.  Such  work  seems  to  have 
good  subjective  results,  and  they  say  that  it  is  better  to  relieve  ninety  and 
nine  imposters  than  to  let  one  deserving  applicant  be  turned  away.  Their 
missions  in  the  large  cities  are  too  often  turned  into  a species  of  salvation 
trap,  baited  with  old  clothes  and  cheap  groceries.  Suppose  that  while  sav- 
ing one  soul  in  this  way  they  have  put  ninety -nine  farther  from  salvation  ? 
That  is  the  question  in  theological  arithmetic  to  which  they  ought  to  turn 
their  attention.  We  have  a stock  case  in  Baltimore  of  a woman  who  had 
her  baby  baptized  in  seven  churches,  in  order  to  interest  as  many  groups  of 
benevolent  but  misguided  women  in  her  condition.  One  pastor  told  me  in 
a moment  of  confidence  that  the  hardest  work  he  had  to  do  was  to  keep 
the  wealthy  women  of  his  congregation  from  giving  unwisely.  Another 
church,  after  spending  several  thousand  dollars  in  direct  relief,  published 
a circular  stating  that  they  were  doubtful  whether  more  harm  or  good  had 
been  done,  and  announcing  that  such  work  would  be  abandoned  and  a kin- 
dergarten for  poor  children  undertaken  instead.^  Two  principles  must  guide 
the  churches  in  our  large  cities  in  their  relief  work : First,  in  the  modern 
city  no  relief-giving  church  nor  charitable  society  can  properly  live  unto 
itself  alone ; there  must  be  intercommunication,  organization,  or  there  will 
be  the  “ overlapping  of  relief”  and  competitive,  demoralizing  work.  Second, 
the  best  charities  are  educative  charities. ' Direct  relief  is  sometimes  neces- 
sary, but  the  churches  need  no  urging  in  that  direction.  They  need  rather 
to  be  reminded  that  “ there  is  a way  that  seemeth  right  unto  a man  but  the 
end  thereof  are  the  ways  of  death ; ” * or,  as  Johnson  put  it,  “ Hell  is  paved 
with  good  intentions.” 


t 


* Proverbs,  14  : 12. 


O “bl 


4 


Charities. 


[84 


Causes  of  Poverty. 

Poverty  is  not  pauperism.  When  Edward  Everett  Hale  began  the  pub- 
lishing of  Lend  a Hand , he  said  that  -one  of  the  objects  of  the  magazine 
should  be  to  show  the  difference  between  these  two.  By  adapting  the 
phrases  of  another  we  may  make  the  distinction  briefly  by  saying  that 
“ poverty  is  a situation,  pauperism  a condition.”  The  first  is  to  be  relieved, 
the  second  prevented. 

Yet  in  as  much  as  poverty  almost  invariably  precedes  pauperism  it  is 
more  profitable  to  search  for  the  causes  of  the  former.  Heredity  acting 
both  upon  institutions  and  individuals  is  one  of  the  prime  causes  of  both 
poverty  and  pauperism.  On  the  institutional  side  this  fact  is  continually 
brought  out  in  lectures  on  history  and  political  economy.  As  illustrating 
therefore,  the  present  influence  of  what  George  Eliot  calls  “ the  great,  the 
irreversible  past,”  I will  speak  only  of  two  very  interesting  studies  of  indi- 
vidual heredity  bearing  especially  upon  the  problems  in  hand. 

Dugdale’s  study  of  the  “ Jukes  ” gives  the  records,  so  far  as  obtained  of 
the  descendents  of  “Margaret,  the  mother  of  criminals.”  Twenty-seven 
of  her  descendents  were  prosecuted  by  one  attorney.  More  than  600  of 
them  are  known  to  have  been  sentenced.  The  cost  to  the  community  of 
1200  of  this  family  is  estimated  at  about  a million  and  a quarter  dollars. 
Concerning  their  habits  Dugdale  gives  the  following  striking  summary : 
“ Fornication,  either  consanguineous  or  not,  is  the  backbone  of  their  habits, 
flanked  on  one  side  by  pauperism  and  on  the  other  by  crime.  The  second- 
ary features  are  prostitution,  with  its  complement  of  bastardy,  and  its  re- 
sultant neglected  and  miseducated  childhood ; exhaustion,  with  its  comple- 
ment intemperance  and  its  resultant  unbalanced  minds ; and  disease,  with 
its  complement  extinction.”  Further  on  he  restates  his  conclusions  as 
follows : “ Hereditary  pauperism  rests  chiefly  upon  disease  in  some  form, 
tends  to  terminate  in  extinction,  and  may  be  called  the  sociological  aspect 
of  physical  degeneration.” 

Bev.  O.  C.  McCulloch,  of  Indianapolis,  has  collected  the  facts  regarding 
a large  number  of  interrelated  pauper  families  in  Indianapolis,  Indiana. 
He  gives  the  general  name  of  the  Tribe  of  Ishmael  to  this  group,  which 
includes  1692  individuals,  whose  histories  are  recorded  on  more  than  seven 
thousand  pages  of  the  records  of  the  charity  organization  society  of  that 
place.  The  members  of  the  tribe  are  almost  invariably  unchaste,  but  not 
intemperate.  One  hundred  and  twenty-one  of  those  whose  cases  have  been 
investigated  are  prostitutes.  They  are  nearly  all  diseased,  and  therefore 
not  only  unwilling  but  unable  to  do  hard  work.  The  records  of  the  city 
hospital  show  that — taking  out  surgical  cases,  acute  general  diseases,  and 
cases  outside  the  city — seventy-five  per  cent,  of  the  cases  treated  are  from 
this  class.  The  criminal  record  is  very  large — petty  thieving  chiefly.  Their 
record,  substantially  of  this  character,  has  been  followed  through  six 
generations.  The  chief  moral  which  Mr.  McCulloch  draws  from  this 


- Charities. 


5 


85] 


“study  in  social  degradation”  is  that  public  out-door  relief  should  be  cut 
off.  This,  together  with  indiscriminate  giving  on  the  part  of  individuals 
and  churches  has  sent  the  Tribe  of  Ishmael  forth  with  the  benediction,  “ be 
fruitful  and  multiply.” 

The  subject  of  the  existing  causes  of  poverty,  as  distinct  from  the  antece- 
dent causes,  is  too  intricate  for  adequate  treatment  here ; and  the  synopsis 
which  follows  is  intended  merely  as  a bird’s-eye-view  of  a large  and  difficult 
field  where  many  observers  and  philosophers  have  labored,  and  where  all 
such  can  find  find  work  till  the  dawn  of  the  millenium  * 


f 

O 


Character- 

istics. 


1.  Undervitalization  and  indolence. 

2.  Specific  disease. 

3.  Lubricity. 

4.  Lack  of  judgment. 

5.  Unhealthy  appetites. 


Habits 
producing 
and  pro- 
duced by 
the  above. 


1.  Shiftlessness. 

2.  Abuse  of  stimulants  and  narcotics. 

3.  Self-abuse  and  sexual  excess. 

4.  Unhealthy  diet. 

5.  Disregard  of  family  ties. 


1.  Inadequate  natural  resources. 

2.  Bad  climatic  conditions. 

3.  Defective  sanitation,  etc. 

4.  Evil  associations  and  surroundings. 

5.  Defective  legislation  and  defective  judicial  and  punitive  ma- 

chinery. 

6.  Imperfect  education. 


Bad  in- 
7.  dustrial 
condition. 


a . Variations  in  value  of  money. 

b.  Changes  in  trade. 

c.  Excessive  or  ill-managed  taxation. 

d.  Emergencies  unprovided  for. 

e.  Undue  power  of  class  over  class. 

/.  Immobility  of  labor. 


8.  Unwise  philanthrophy. 


♦See  “Notes  on  the  Statistical  Determination  of  the  Causes  of  Poverty,”  by  Dr.  War- 
ner, published  by  Am.  Stat.  Asso.,  Boston,  1889. 


6 


Charities . 


[86 


The  Machinery  op  Benevolence. 

Dr.  Lyman  Abbott  has  said  that  if  the  Good  Samaritan  had  been  a 
Yankee  and  lived  at  the  present  time,  he  would  not  have  been  content  to 
relieve  the  man  by  the  wayside,  but  would  have  set  to  work  to  organize  a 
Society  for  the  Relief  of  Sick  and  Wounded  Travellers,  with  a President, 
several  Vice-Presidents,  a Treasurer,  and  Secretaries  and  Corresponding 
Secretaries  in  every  part  of  Palestine.  I prefer  to  ignore  the  irony  of  this 
remark,  and  to  consider  it  a high  tribute  to  the  good  sense  and  general 
adaptability  of  our  old  friend  the  Samaritan.  Perhaps  he  would  have 
done  even  better  to  have  organized  a sort  of  Law  and  Order  League  to 
capture  the  thieves  and  bring  them  to  justice.  Thirst  is  the  same  now  as 
in  the  time  of  Gideon.  Yet  when  his  soldiers  drank  they  either  lapped 
from  the  hand  or  bowed  themselves  to  the  stream.  The  modern  city  cannot 
adopt  that  primitive  method  but  must  have  water-works.  So  with  charity. 

Classes  of  Dependents.  There  has  been  much  effort  in  this  country  to  find 
the  proper  location  of  the  various  burdens  incident  to  poor  relief.  Indi- 
viduals, churches,  benevolent  organizations,  the  municipality  or  the  town- 
ship, the  county  and  the  State  ought  all  to  have  their  proper  shares.  The 
first  step  in  discussing  the  problem  must  be  to  enumerate  the  chief  of  the 
classes  for  which  provision  must  be  made,  (a)  The  insane  in  this  country, 
as  given  by  the  tenth  census,  numbered  91,997,  but  the  enumeration  was 
admitted  to  be  incomplete.  They  are  divided  into  the  chronic  and  acute 
insane,  for  which  two  classes,  very  different  treatment  is  needed.  ( b ) The 
idiotic,  weak-minded  and  epileptic,  constitute  a class  often  but  ill  provided 
for.  They  require,  in  the  main,  custodial  homes  where  they  can  live  in 
decency,  but  with  no  possibility  of  propagating  their  kind,  (c)  The  blind 
may  nearly  always  be  made  self-sustaining  by  proper  education.  When, 
after  patient  trial,  it  is  found  that  they  cannot  support  themselves  in  the 
regular  trades  to  which  they  may  be  trained,  homes  should  be  provided  for 
them  where,  in  return  for  all  the  work  they  may  be  able  to  do,  they  can  be 
supported.  Blind  beggars  should  be  banished  from  our  streets,  because, 
while  they  are  the  most  pitiable  class,  they  are  often  the  most  depraved 
when  allowed  to  live  on  indiscriminately  given  alms — “the  bread  by  which 
men  die.”  (d)  For  deaf-mutes  provision  is  comparatively  easy,  except,  as 
all  institutions  under  public  care  have  to  be  closely  watched  in  their 
administrative  methods,  (e)  Dependent  children  are  among  the  most 
difficult  classes  to  provide  for  properly.  They  may  be  divided  into  sub- 
classes as  foundlings,  vagrants,  children  abused  by  parents  and  juvenile 
delinquents.  Each  of  these  sub-classes  requires  different  treatment,  and  in 
none  of  them  can  large  numbers  of  children  be  crowded  into  institutions 
without  great  injury  to  the  children.  This  sort  of  herding  often  weakens 
the  body,  leaves  the  mind  a blank,  and  the  spiritual  and  moral  nature 
undeveloped.  Whenever  it  is  necessary  that  they  be  thus  crowded  together, 
kindergarten  and  manual  training  should  be  introduced  as  soon  as  possible. 


87] 


Charities . 


7 


The  excellent  system  of  placing  such  children  in  private  homes  is  suscepti- 
ble of  great  abuses  unless  carefully  managed.  The  Western  States  complain 
that  they  have  been  flooded  wit'h  vicious  children  by  the  New  York  Chil- 
dren’s Aid  Society  and  kindred  organizations.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is 
simply  that  care  must  be  taken,  or  “placing  out”  is  bad  for  both  the  chil- 
dren and  the  communities  to  which  they  go.  (/)  Cripples  are  usually  at 
present  remanded  to  the  almshouse,  and  perhaps  nothing  better  can  be 
provided  for  them,  except  in  cases  where  expert  surgical  treatment  or 
special  education  might  make  them  self-sustaining.  ( g ) The  sick,  curable 
and  incurable,  need  something  different  from  almshouse  care,  and  the  cur- 
able cases  usually  get  it.  (A)  The  aged  having  no  relatives  or  friends  to 
support  them  must  be  provided  for,  either  in  institutions  maintained  by 
private  benevolence  or  in  the  almshouse.  ( i ) Lastly,  we  must  add  the  class 
made  up  of  the  unemployed  and  hungry.  The  “ work  test  ” should  be 
rigidly  employed  in  all  relief  given  to  this  class,  whether  by  individuals  or 
the  public. 

Where  shall  the  Burdens  Best.  It  was  at  one  time  the  custom  to  leave 
almost  the  entire  care  of  the  poor  to  the  local  political  units.  The  town, 
precinct  or  county,  made  all  the  provision  that  was  made^  in  the  matter. 
But  it  was  found  that  for  some  purposes  the  county  is  too  large  a unit,  while 
for  others  it  is  not  large  enough.  We  have  seen  that  of  the  classes  given 
above,  each  requires  special  treatment.  Obviously,  if  there  are  in  a given 
county  only  two  or  three  indigent  blind,  the  county  cannot  afford  to  provide 
a specialist  merely  to  instruct  them.  Therefore,  by  the  old  county  manage- 
ment, they  were  not  instructed.  The  county  almshouse  became  a sort  of 
catch-all  for  every  species  of  indigence.  The  baby  and  the  gray-beard,  the 
vicious  and  the  good,  the  sick  and  the  healthy,  the  insane,  the  idiotic  and 
the  epileptic  were  all  jumbled  together;  and  it  was  fortunate  if  even  the 
sexes  were  effectually  separated.  There  was  not,  for  a long  time,  and  in 
many  States  there  is  not  yet,  any  adequate  inspection  of  these  almshouses, 
except  the  desultory  watchfulness  of  the  people  and  the  press.  The  most 
hideous  abuses  came  to  light  from  time  to  time,  and  gradually  there  was 
developed  a tendency  to  transfer  certain  classes  of  dependents  to  the  States. 
The  result  has  been  the  development  of  gigantic  State  institutions.  Espe- 
cially in  providing  for  the  insane  these  great  caravansaries  have  grown  to 
the  most  unwieldy  proportions.  The  result  has  been  to  develop  new  evils 
in  the  place  of  the  old  ones.  Chief  among  these  may  be  named  excessive 
cost,  a treatment  too  mechanical  to  be  helpful,  and  at  times  bad  adminis- 
tration. New  York  State  is  changing  back  from  State  to  county  care  for 
the  insane,  though  against  the  advice  of  most  of  her  specialists.  Wisconsin 
prides  herself  on  having  developed  a system  of  count}’’  care  under  State 
supervision,  at  once  cheap  and  commendable.  Many  classes  of  the  chronic 
insane  are  better  off  when  they  can  have  work  of  some  kind,  and  it  is  found 
that  an  almshouse  can  be  more  nearly  self-sustaining  when  some  of  these 
are  placed  there. 


• Charities. 


[88 


8 

The  New  York  State  Charities  Aid  Association  thus  summarizes  its  con- 
clusions regarding  the  proper  provision  for  various  classes  of  dependents : 
“ The  blind,  deaf  and  dumb,  idiots  and  insane,  should  go  to  State  institu- 
tions, under  the  care  of  specialists  ; 1 defective  children  ’ to  a proper  hospital 
or  home,  bad  women  to  reformatories,  feeble  minded  women  and  adult 
idiots  to  custodial  institutions ; tramps  and  vagrants  to  work-houses.  The 
poor-house  should  be  a refuge  and  a home  where  the  respectable  poor,  the 
sick,  the  old,  those  who  have  broken  down  in  the  race  of  life  may  find 
shelter  and  care.” 

The  guiding  principle  for  sharing  the  burdens  of  poor  relief  between  the 
larger  and  smaller  poor  unions  in  Germany  is  thus  formulated  by  the 
“ deutschen  Vereine  fur  Armenpflege  und  Wohlthatigkeit : ” “ Those  sorts 
of  poor  relief  which  require  a costly  plant  or  large  permanent  investment, 
or  institutions  for  technical  purposes  needing  well-trained  and  skilful  man- 
agement, should  be  confided  to  the  larger  unions,  while  on  the  other  hand, 
those  forms  of  poor  relief  can  best  be  left  to  the  smaller  unions,  which 
require  for  the  proper  fulfilment  of  their  purposes,  a large  measure  of  indi- 
vidual interest,  and  a full  consideration  of  surrounding  circumstances.” 
Applying  this  principle  to  the  concrete  duties  of  poor  relief  they  find  that 
it  would  give  to  the  larger  unions  the  care  of  the  insane,  of  idiots,  of  the 
sick  in  hospitals,  of  the  deaf  and  dumb,  of  the  blind,  of  certain  catagories 
of  the  invalid  and  feeble,  of  waifs  and  of  children  sentenced  by  the  courts. 
The  larger  unions  should  also  provide  work-houses  and  houses  of  correction. 

State  Boards  of  Charities.  Banks  and  Insurance  companies  are  usually 
more  carefully  supervised  by  the  States  than  charitable  institutions.  It  has 
been  said  of  our  charitable  and  punitive  institutions  that  they  are  not  the 
outcome  “of  the  wisdom  of  our  generation,  but  rather  the  cumulative 
accidents  of  popular  negligence,  indifference  and  incapacity.”  It  can  readily 
be  seen  from  the  foregoing  analysis  of  the  classes  of  dependents  and  their 
various  needs,  that  some  general  supervisory  and  coordinating  power  is 
necessary.  This  is  not  afforded  in  the  legislatures,  nor  in  legislative  com- 
mittees. The  American  idea,  that  the  committee  doeth  all  things  well,  is 
not  borne  out  by  the  experience  of  charitable  institutions  in  this  country. 
The  annual  or  semi-annual  battle  in  the  lobby  for  support,  results  not  in 
scientific  charity  but  scientific  log-rolling,  and  leads  to  the  survival,  not  of 
the  fittest,  but  of  the  “ smartest.”  Where  the  supervisory  and  regulative 
power  has  been  introduced,  it  has  been  through  a State  Board  of  Charities, 
or  of  Charities  and  Corrections.  Such  boards  have  been  established  in 
Connecticut,  Illinois,  Kansas,  Massachusetts,  Michigan,  Minnesota,  New 
Jersey,  New  York,  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  Rhode  Island  and  Wisconsin. 

Some  of  the  boards  are  made  up  of  unsalaried  members.  Such  have,  as  a 
rule,  no  power  except  to  investigate  ahd  give  advice.  These  boards  often 
exert  a most  salutary  and  far  reaching  influence  by  virtue  of  their  general 
oversight  and  intelligent  and  candid  recommendations.  Other  boards  have 
salaried  officers  and  these  are  given  a larger  share  of  executive  power. 


89] 


Charities. 


9 


They  exert  a powerful  influence  for  good  when  they  can  be  kept  free  from  the 
blight  of  partisan  politics.  They  should  inspect  frequently  all  the  public  insti- 
tutions of  the  State,  and  in  a way  that  would  really  bring  all  the  practices 
of  the  managers  of  the  institutions  to  light.  In  Maryland  the  grand  jury 
dines  periodically  with  the  managers.  This  does  not  seem  to  be  the  final 
possibility  in  the  way  of  supervision.  Private  charitable  institutions  ought, 
by  the  terms  of  their  charters,  to  be  subject  to  inspection,  and  otherwise 
amenable  to  this  board.  The  results  of  dishonesty,  negligence  or  folly  on 
the  part  of  the  managers  of  these  private  institutions  are  too  awful  to  be 
ignored. 

The  Charities  of  Large  Cities. 

Public  Charities.  There  are  three  ways  in  which  our  American  cities 
usually  spend  money  for  the  poor : in  out-door  relief,  in  the  support  of  pub- 
lic institutions,  and  in  the  subsidizing  of  private  institutions. 

1.  There  are  many  facts  and  more  theories  that  indicate  that  public  out- 
door relief  as  administered  in  this  country  is  a source  of  useless  expense  to 
the  tax -payer,  of  additional  debauchment  to  politics,  and  of  ever  increasing 
degradation  to  the  poor.  The  cases  most  in  point  and  oftenest  cited  are 
those  of  Brooklyn  and  Philadelphia.  For  a long  series  of  years  Brooklyn 
had  been  spending  large  amounts  for  out-door  relief.  The  methods  of  dis- 
tribution varied  from  medium  to  horrible,  but  political  influence  was  nearly 
always  present.  At  one  time  this  sort  of  relief  was  given  to  all  who  would 
make  oath  that  they  were  paupers,  and  many  of  the  citizens  of  New  York 
came  over  to  avail  themselves  of  such  an  opportunity.  In  1877  the  city 
spent  for  out-door  relief  the  sum  of  $141,000,  in  1878  $57,000,  and  the  years 
that  followed  nothing.  The  result  was  that  in  the  face  of  an  increasing 
population  the  number  of  in-door  poor  remained  stationary,  and  the  amount 
of  relief  distributed  by  the  Association  for  the  Improvement  of  the  Condi- 
tion of  the  Poor  decreased.  There  was,  indeed,  an  increase  in  the  number 
of  dependent  children,  but  this  resulted  from  changes  in  the  law  bearing  on 
that  special  point,  and  a like  increase  was  observed  in  New  York  city,  where 
no  corresponding  change  in  relief  methods  took  place. 

During  the  seventies,  Philadelphia  spent  from  fifty-eight  to  seventy -eight 
thousand  dollars  annually  in  out-door  relief.  On  the  first  of  January  1880 
the  whole  supply  was  stopped.  The  Secretary  of  the  Society  for  Organizing 
Charity  three  years  later  writes  of  the  results  as  follows : “ At  the  time  it 
was  abolished,  we  for  a few  weeks  felt  an  increased  pressure  for  relief  upon 
the  private  charities,  but  that  was  only  temporary,  and  although  the  popu- 
lation of  the  city  has  increased  during  the  last  three  years,  the  number  of 
the  in-door  poor  has  decreased.” 

2.  Charitable  Institutions  managed  directly  by  municipal  authorities  are, 
as  a rule,  of  lower  grade  than  state  institutions  of  a similar  kind.  This 
comes  largely  from  the  fact,  that  they  are  more  immediately  under  the 
control  of  ward  politics.  The  following  paragraph  from  the  address  of  Hon. 


Charities. 


10 


[90 


Seth  Low,  before  the  Buffalo  Conference  of  Charities  and  Corrections,  reveals 
the  fatal  defect  in  such  management. 

“ In  the  city  of  Brooklyn  there  is  an  institution  knowh  as  the  Truant 
Home.  The  superintendent  and  other  officers  in  this  institution  are  ap- 
pointed by  the  vote  of  the  Common  Council,  without  nomination  by  the 
Mayor.  Among  the  officials  to  be  appointed  is  the  farmer;  and  at  one 
time  when  the  appointment  had  been  made  the  farmer  turned  out  to  be  a 
hatter.  He  had  supposed  himself  entirely  equal  to  the  duties  of  drawing  a 
salary,  and  this  he  presumed  would  be  the  limit  of  what  he  had  to  do. 
When  he  discovers  that  the  duties  of  the  farmer  included  taking  care  of  a 
cow  and  the  raising  of  vegetables,  he  sent  in  his  resignation  without  delay. 
In  this  connection,  it  transpired  that  all  the  places  in  the  gift  of  the  Com- 
mon Council  were  filled  in  the  following  way : The  members  of  the  board, 
comprising  the  majority  held  a caucus,  and  by  mutual  agreement  or  by  lot 
parcelled  out  the  places  among  the  different  members  of  the  majority. 
Consequently  when  this  farmer  resigned,  the  individual  alderman  to  whom 
the  appointment  was  held  to  belong — I ask  you  to  notice  the  word — selected 
another  friend,  this  time  one  not  to  be  daunted  by  the  idea  of  taking  care 
of  a cow ; and  upon  his  nomination  this  friend  was  immediately  confirmed 
by  the  board  of  aldermen.  . . . Where  the  management  of  an  institution 
is  lodged  with  a board  of  more  than  one  member,  if  the  board  is  harmo- 
nious, the  practice  is  that  the  patronage  is  shared  in  equal  proportions, 
turn  and  turn  alike.  If  the  board  is  not  harmonious,  the  majority,  take  it 
all  and  divide  it  among  themselves.  This,  more  than  anything  else  accounts 
for  the  frequency  of  inharmonious  boards.” 

3.  The  practice  of  subsidizing  private  institutions  is  sometimes  justifiable 
but  often  leads  to  needless  expense,  to  private  “jobs”  and  sectarian  jealous- 
ies. New  York  city  sends  various  classes  of  juvenile  dependents  to  private 
institutions,  and  pays  two  dollars  a week  for  the  board  of  each  child.  This 
allowance  is  large  enough  so  that  the  institution  derives  a profit  from  each 
child  committed  to  its  care.  There  are  many  officials  in  the  city  who 
commit  children  to  these  institutions  but  none  who  feel  it  their  duty  to 
discharge  them.  The  result  is  that  New  York  is  paying  the  board  of  14,000 
children;  while  under  a better  system  Brooklyn,  which  is  half  as  large, 
maintains  but  1,200. 

Private  Charities.  Few  people  know  what  a net-work  of  charities  has 
been  developed  in  our  large  cities.  Something  more  than  twenty  years  ago 
a writer  in  the  Nation  could  say  with  apparent  truth  that  this  country  had 
never  been  compelled  to  organize  a system  of  charities,  or  to  treat  pauper- 
ism as  an  institution.  This  is  no  longer  true  even  in  appearance,  as  the 
Directories  of  Charities  published  in  our  leading  cities  give  evidence. 
Baltimore  will  be  taken  as  typical  because  it  is  the  one  with  which  the 
speaker  is  best  acquainted,  and  because  its  charitable  industries  are  suffi- 
ciently “ diversified  ” to  enable  us  to  infer  all  from  this  example. 

The  mailing-list  of  the  Charity  Organization  Society  gives  the  address  of 


91] 


Charities. 


11 


120  private  charitable  institutions  or  societies  in  Baltimore,  exclusive  of 
those  subsidiary  to  the  churches.  Many  of  these  are  of  very  minor  import- 
ance, but  others  are  of  wide  influence,  and  powerful  agents  for  good  or  evil. 
Selecting  twenty-five  prominent  and  powerful  institutions,  we  find  that  they 
have  an  aggregate  yearly  revenue  amounting  to  $196,280.  This  does  not 
include  the  interest  upon  the  value  of  real  estate  or  other  property  actually 
in  use  for  charitable  purposes,  and  is  exclusive  of  legacies  received  during 
the  year  and  designed  for  permanent  investment.  Voluntary  subscriptions 
and  contributions  make  up  44  per  cent,  of  this  income,  while  25  per  cent,  is 
received  as  interest  upon  funds  previously  invested.  The  next  largest  item 
of  income  is  of  proportionately  more  importance  in  Baltimore  than  perhaps 
in  almost  any  other  city  in  the  country.  It  consists  of  the  amount  raised 
by  balls,  fairs,  theatrical  performances,  etc.,  and  amounts  to  $23,714.69,  or 
about  13  per  cent,  of  the  gross  income  of  the  twenty-five  societies.  Of  the 
gross  amount,  10  per  cent,  is  earned ; that  is,  the  recipients  of  charity  per- 
form work  valued  at  that  amount ; while  5 per  cent,  is  made  up  of  subsidies 
from  the  city  treasury  and  3 per  cent,  from  the  treasury  of  the  State. 

There  are  societies  to  relieve  any  need  whatever  of  particular  classes  of 
persons.  The  Hebrew  Benevolent  will  do  this  for  Israelites,  the  German 
Society  for  Germans,  the  St.  Andrew’s  Society  for  the  Scotch,  the  denomi- 
national societies  for  those  of  their  faith,  and  for  an  undetermined  number 
of  outsiders.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  societies  that  will  relieve  any 
person  whatever  in  some  particular  way.  The  Poor  Association  will  give 
coal  and  groceries  to  any  applicant  it  considers  worthy,  without  regard  to 
religion,  race  or  color.  The  dispensaries  will  give  medicine,  the  sewing 
societies  clothing,  and  so  on.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  lines  of  activity 
intersect.  The  classification  by  race  overlaps  that  by  religion,  while  the 
classification  by  needs  overlies  them  both,  and  several  agencies  for  the  same 
sort  of  work  are  superimposed  upon  the  others,  while  unlimited  claims  upon 
individual  benevolence  supplement  or  duplicate  the  whole.  Suppose  the 
case  of  a German  Lutheran  who  is  in  need  of  one  thing  only,  say  fuel. 
There  are  four  organizations  that  he  may  properly  apply  to:  (1)  The 
German  Society;  (2)  his  church;  (3)  the  Poor  Association ; (4)  the  police 
station.  If  he  is  sick,  the  Indigent  Sick  Society  may  also  aid  ; if  a soldier, 
he  may  apply  to4he  Confederate  Relief  Society  or  the  Grand  Army  of  the 
Republic ; if  his  children  go  to  a Methodist  Sunday  School,  help  may  be 
had  fropj  that  source;  if  his  wife  is  a Roman  Catholic,  she  may  apply  to 
the  Society  of  St.  Vincent  de  Paul;  and  finally,  if  he  is  just  out  of  jail,  the 
Prisoner’s  Aid  Association  may  help.  All  this,  of  course,  does  not  include 
what  may  be  obtained  from  private  individuals. 

Charity  Organization.  Aruong  all  the  foregoing  charities  there  is  not^ 
office  where  it  is  strictly  in  order  for  any  person  whatever  to 
form  of  relief  whatever.  The  charity  organization  society 
this  need,  to  furnish  a clue  to  the 
to  the  proper  source  of  reli< 


12 


Charities. 


[92 


for  the  sake  of  the  receiver  as  of  the  giver.  It  is  a charity  clearing  house 
where  the  accounts  of  the  various  societies  are  audited,  and  the  over-lap- 
ping of  relief  prevented.  It  is  a bureau  of  information,  where  those  who 
desire  to  be  truly  helpful,  can  secure  the  information  necessary  to  guide 
their  conduct.  The  society  itself  if  located  in  a large  city  should  not  give 
direct  relief  of  any  sort,  since  nothing  ^ hampers  the  work  of  an  agent  of 
such  a society  as  to  have  a relief  fund  at  his  command.  It  cripples  bis 
ingenuity,  decreases  his  acquaintance  with  persons  and  societies  able  to 
help,  and  makes  these  persons  and  societies  more  likely  to  unload  dis- 
couraging cases  upon  him  than  to  relieve  cases  that  he  commends  to  their 
attention. 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  may  possibly  be  thus  stated : Poverty 
and  pauperism  are  evils  to  be  assailed  in  their  causes.  To  accomplish  this 
the  public  charities  must  be  wisely  organized  under  the  general  supervision 
of  the  state ; and  the  private  charities  ought  also  to  organize  and  co-ordi- 
nate their  work  under  the  guidance  of  a charity  organization  society, 
maintained  by  them  for  their  mutual  good. 


NOTES  SUPPLEMENTARY  TO  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY 
STUDIES  IN  HISTORICAL  AND  POLITICAL  SCIENCE. 

The  publication  of  a series  of  Notes  was  begun  in  January,  1889.  The  following  have 
thus  far  been  issued : 

1.  Municipal  Government  in  England.  By  Dr.  Albert  Shaw,  of  Minneapolis. 

2.  Social  Work  in  Australia  and  London.  By  Mr.  Wm.  Grey,  of  London. 

3.  Encouragement  of  Higher  Education.  By  Professor  Herbert  B.  Adams. 

4.  The  Problem  of  City  Government.  By  Hon.  Seth  Low,  of  Brooklyn. 

5.  The  Libraries  of  Baltimore.  By  Mr.  P.  R.  Uhler,  of  the  Peabody  Institute. 

6.  Work  among  the  Workingwomen  in  Baltimore.  By  Professor  H.  B.  Adams. 

7.  Charities  : The  Relation  of  the  State,  the  City,  and  the  Individual  to  Modern  Philan- 

thropic Work.  By  A.  G.  Warner,  Ph.  D. 


These  Notes  are  sent  without  charge  to  regular  subscribers  to  the  Studies.  They  are 
sold  at  five  cents  each;  twenty-five  copies  will  be  furnished  for  $1.00. 


A detailed  prospectus  of  the  “ Studies  ” will  be  sent  on  application.  The 
following  nurayfrs  are  now  ready : 

I.  Arnold  Toynbee.  By  F.  C.  Montague,  Fellow  of  Oriel  College.  With  an  Account 
of  the  Work  of  Toynbee  Hall  in  East  London,  by  Philip  Lyttelton  Gell,  M.  A., 
Chair  Min  of  the  Council.  Also  an  Account  of  the  Neighborhood. Guild  in  New 
York,®y  Charles  B.  Stover.  A.  B.  50  cents. 

II-III.  The  Establishment  of  Municipal  Government  in  Sap  Francisco.  By 
Bernard  Moses,  Ph.  D.,  Professor  of  History  and  Politics  in  the  University  of 
California.  50  cents. 

IV.  Municipal  History  of  New  Orleans.  By  JUbGE  William  W.  HO\f.. 

25  cents. 

V-VI.  English  Culture  in  Virginia:  The  Jefferson-Gilmer  Letters.  By  Professor 
W illiam  P.  Trent,  of  the  University  of  the  S(  vth.  $1.00. 

VII-VIII-IX.  The  River  Towns  of  Connecticut,  a Study  of  Wethersfield,  Hartford, 
and  Windsor.  By  Charles  M.  Andrews,  Fellow  in  History,  J.  H.  U.  $1.00. 
X-XI-XII.  Federal  Government  in  Canada.  By  Tohn  George  Bourinot,  LLNd., 
Clerk  of  the  Canadian  House  of  Commons. 

numbers  are  issued  yearly.  The  cost  of  subscr  iption  is  $3.00  payable  in  advance. 

all  orders  to  the  Publication  Age\tCY,  Johns  Hopkins  Uni- 
nviORE,  Md. 


